DETAILED ACTION
This application, 17/887273, attorney docket AD8401-US 111548-272705, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is assigned to Intel Inc, and has an effective filing date of 8/12/2022 based on the filing date. Claims 1-12 and 15 are pending and considered below. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1 and 11 and argues that the art of record ark does not teach entirely covering the first volume of the first material because Park shows in figure 4b a center portion that is uncovered by the second portion. So, the rejection based on Park is withdrawn and a new rejection is presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 does not limit claim 1 after the amendment. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Yen et al. (U.S. 2020/0105683).
As for claim 1,
Yen teaches in teaches in figure 5, a substrate (110) comprising:
a first layer (150);
a first volume of a first material in the first layer (311), wherein the first volume of the first material in the first layer extends from a first side (region to the left of the trench) of the first layer to a second side (region to the right of the trench) of the first layer opposite the first side of the first layer;
a second layer (170) on the first side of the first layer;
a second volume (380) of a second material in the second layer, wherein the second volume of the second material extends from a first side of the second layer to a second side of the second layer opposite the first side of the second layer; and
wherein the second volume of the second material in the second layer is adjacent to and covers an entirety of the first volume of the first material in the first layer. (shown filling the trench and covering the entire top surface of 311)
As for claim 2,
Yen teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein the second volume of the second material completely overlaps the first volume of the first material in the first layer (shown filling the trench and covering the entire top surface of 311).
As for claim 3,
Yen teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein a bottom surface of the first volume of the first material in the first layer proximate to the second side of the first layer is not coplanar with the second side of the first layer. (the bottom of the trench extends through 130 into 120).
As for claim 4,
Ten teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein the first material includes a selected one or more of: an epoxy material, a liquid mold material, or dielectric material; and wherein the second material includes a selected one or more of: a dielectric or an epoxy. (311 can be SiOx [0022]; 380 can be SiOx [0027] ).
As for claim 5,
Park teaches the substrate of claim 1, and teaches that the first material and the second material are a same material. (they can both be silicon oxides).
As for claim 6,
Yen teaches the substrate of claim 1, and teaches a liner (250) over the first volume of the first material that physically separates the first volume of the liner of the first material from the first layer and physically separates the second volume of the second material from the second layer.
As for claim 7,
Yen teaches the substrate of claim 6, wherein the liner includes a selected one or more of: a dielectric material, an epoxy material, or liquid mold material. (liner is TaN TaO, or polymer, [0022]).
As for claim 8,
Yen teaches the substrate of claim 1, and teaches that a side of the first volume of the first material in the first layer that extends from the first side of the first layer to the second side of the second layer is substantially perpendicular to the first side of the first layer. (shown in figure 5).
As for claim 9,
Yen teaches the substrate of claim 1 and teaches that the first layer includes portions of a circuit. (100 is a semiconductor device 0042])).
As for claim 10,
Yen teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein the substrate is a portion of a selected one or more of: one or more bonded wafers, a wafer that includes one or more individual dies, a package substrate, or a packaged unit. (the device on is substrate that comprises transistor, which inherently require separation into individual dies to provide a useful device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen in view of Hua et al. (U.S. 2014/0131876).
As for claim 11,
Yen teaches in figure 5 a wafer comprising:
a first layer (150) with a first side and a second side opposite the first side;
a second layer (160) with a first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the second side of the second layer is on the first side of the first layer;
a third layer (170) with a first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the second side of the third layer is on the first side of the second layer;
and a cavity (201, fig. 2) extending from the first side of the third layer to the second side of the first layer.
and a side of the cavity in the first layer is substantially perpendicular to the first side of the first layer. (shown in figure 2, vertical sidewalls are the result of anisotropic etch.)
Yen does not teach a comprising a volume of epoxy in the cavity, the volume of epoxy extending from the second side of the first layer to the first side of the first layer.
However, Yen uses an adhesive layer of TaO or polymer (250) to line the trench before filling to protect the fill from peeling (see Park U.S 2007/0155165, [0033]), and Hua suggest that an epoxy can be used for the same reason. (Hua [0020]).
Using epoxy as a substitute adhesive liner was known, the technical ability existed to substitute epoxy for TaO, and the result of the substitution was predictable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute epoxy for a dielectric adhesive, because polymers improve moisture resistance in the barrier to protect the materials from moisture contamination, and epoxy has a higher ductility than TaO for better cracking resistance.
As for claim 12,
Yen in view of Hua makes obvious the wafer of claim 11, wherein a bottom of the cavity proximate to the second side of the first layer is not coplanar with the second side of the first layer. (The bottom of the trench 201 extends through 130 into 120).
As for claim 14,
Yen in view of Hua make obvious the wafer of claim 13, and in the combination, Yen teaches a dielectric on the volume of epoxy. (311 and 380 are dielectrics, [0022,0027]).
As for claim 15,
Yen in view of Hua makes obvious the wafer of claim 11, and in the combination, Yen teaches that the dielectric completely overlaps the volume of epoxy. (shown in figure 5).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yara Green can be reached at 571-270-3035. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN A BODNAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights